Sunday, September 24, 2017

A Source for Rav Kook’s Orot Hateshuva Chapters 1 - 3

A Source for Rav Kook’s Orot Hateshuva Chapters 1 - 3

By Chaim Katz, Montreal

Rav Kook begins the first chapter of his Orot Hateshuva [1] as follows:

We find three categories of repentance: 1) natural repentance 2) faithful repentance 3) intellectual repentance.
את התשובה אנו מוצאים בשלש מערכות: א) תשובה טבעית, ב) תשובה אמונית, ג) תשובה שכלית

He defines natural repentance:

(תשובה טבעית) הגופנית סובבת את כל העבירות נגד חוקי הטבע, המוסר והתורה, המקושרים עם חוקי הטבע. שסוף כל הנהגה רעה הוא להביא מחלות ומכאובים . . . ואחרי הבירור שמתברר אצלו הדבר, שהוא בעצמו בהנהגתו הרעה אשם הוא בכל אותו דלדול החיים שבא לו, הרי הוא שם לב לתקן את המצב
The natural physical repentance revolves around all sins against the laws of nature ethics and Torah that are connected to the laws of nature. All misdeeds lead to illness and pain . . . but after the clarification, when he clearly recognizes that he alone through his own harmful behavior is responsible for the sickness he feels, he turns his attention toward rectifying the problem.

Rav Kook is describing a repentance that stems from a feeling of physical weakness or illness. He also includes repentance of sins against natural ethics and natural aspects of the Torah. A sin of ethics might be similar to the חסיד שוטה, who takes his devoutness to foolish extremes (Sotah 20a). A sin in Torah might be one who fasts although he is unable to handle fasting (Taanit 11b דלא מצי לצעורי נפשיה) [2].

R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in his collection of sermons Likutei Torah [3], also recognizes three types of repentance. Homiletically, he finds the three types in Ps. 34, 15.

סור מרע, ועשה טוב, בקש שלום ורדפהו.
He also relates the types to three names of G-d that appear in the text of the berachos that we say:
 ברוך אתה ד' אלוקינו  

According to R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first level of repentance relates to the Divine name Elokim (In Hassidic thought, repentance (teshuva or return) is taken literally as ‘returning to G-d’, not only as repentance from sin.) The mystics of the 16th century connected the name Elokim to nature.
אלוקים בגימטריא הטבע
The word Elokim is numerically equivalent to the word for nature (hateva). [4]

In the sermon, Elokim is also related to ממלא כל עלמין, the immanence of G-d, which may have something to do with the laws of nature.

R. Kook describes the second level of repentance as follows:
אחרי התשובה הטבעית באה האמונית, היא החיה בעולם ממקור המסורת והדת
After the natural repentance comes a repentance based on faith. It subsists in the world from a source of tradition and religion.

R. Shneur Zelman of Liadi describes the second type of repentance as a return to the Divine name Hashem, the Tetragrammaton. This name signifies the transcendence of G-d, the name associated with the highest degree of revelation, the name of G-d that was revealed at Sinai and that is associated with the giving of the Torah.

Rav Kook’s third level of repentance:

התשובה השכלית היא . . . הכרה ברורה, הבאה מהשקפת העולם והחיים השלמה . . . היא מלאה כבר אור אין קץ
The intellectual repentance . . . is a clear recognition that comes from an encompassing world and life view. . . . It is a level filled with infinite light.

R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi describes the third level of as a return through Torah study to the level of the Or En Sof, the infinite self-revelation of G-d. It is a return to אתה to Thou.
In summary, R. Shneur Zalman discusses three types of teshuva, (although the sources only speak about two types: תשובה מיראה , תשובה מאהבהYoma 86b). These three teshuva categories form a progression. Rav Kook also speaks of a threefold progression: a return based on nature, a return based on faith, and a return based on intellect. [5]

R. Kook did study Likutei Torah. This is documented in a book called Mazkir HaRav by R. Shimon Glicenstein (published in 1973) [6]. R. Glicenstein was Rav Kook’s personal secretary during the years of the First World War, when Rav Kook served as a Rabbi in London.

On page 10, R. Glicenstein writes:

One time on the eve of the holiday of Shavuot, I entered the Rav’s room and I found him running back and forth like a young man. He was holding Likutei Torah (the section on the Song of Songs) of the Alter Rebbe (the Rav of Liadi) in his hand. With sublime ecstasy and great emotion, he repeated a number of times: “Look, open Divine Inspiration springs out of each and every line of these Hassidic essays and exegeses”.
מכל שורה ושורה שבמאמרי ודרושי חסידות אלה מבצבץ רוח הקדש גלוי'
bcb
The second chapter of Orot Hatshuva is titled Sudden Repentance and Gradual Repentance. The chapter consists of three short paragraphs: the first describes the sudden teshuva as a sort of spiritual flare that spontaneously shines its light on the soul. The second paragraph explains gradual teshuva is terms of a constant effort to plod forward and improve oneself without the benefit of spiritual inspiration.  

These ideas also find a parallel in the Likutei Torah [7]. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi discusses two levels of Divine service (not two levels of repentance). In one a spontaneous spiritual arousal comes from above (itaruta de le-eyla) initiated by G-d as a Divine kindness, without any preparation on man’s part. In the other (itaruta de le-tata) man serves G-d with great exertion and effort, taming and refining his own animal nature, without the benefit of any Divine encouragement.

Rav Kook’s third paragraph is difficult to understand. Rav Kook begins by describing again the sudden repentance:
התשובה העליונה  באה מהברקה של הטוב הכללי של הטוב האלהי השורה בעולמות כולם
The sublime teshuva is a result of a flash of the general good of the G-dly good, which permeates all worlds.

The paragraph then continues on a seemingly different track.
והיושר והטוב שבנו הלא הוא בא מהתאמתנו אל הכל, ואיך אפשר להיות קרוע מן הכל, פרור משונה, מופרד כאבק דק שכלא חשב. ומתוך הכרה זו, שהיא הכרה אלהית באמת, באה תשובה מאהבה בחיי הפרט ובחיי הכלל

The rightness and goodness within us, does it not come from our symmetry with the whole. How can we be torn from the whole, like an odd crumb, like insignificant specs of dust?
From this recognition, which is truthfully a G-dly recognition, comes repentance from love in both the life of the individual and the life of the society.

I have a feeling that this paragraph is also related to something in Likutei Torah. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (in the sermon just mentioned) relates that people complain to him because they feel a spirit of holiness that arouses them to emotional prayer for a only a short duration of time (sometimes for a few weeks). Afterwards the inspiration ceases completely and it’s as if it never existed. He responds, that they should take advantage of those periods of inspiration when they occur, not just to enjoy the pleasure of prayer, but also to change their behavior and character for the better. The state of inspiration will then return.

I think Rav Kook, in his own way is dealing with the same issue. Obviously, the goal is the sudden, inspired teshuvah, but how do we get there? How do we take the exalted periods of awareness and inspiration and regulate them, so that they are more deliberate, intentional and continuous. I can’t say I understand the answer, but I think Rav Kook is saying that if we recognize that we are part of the “whole” and not separate then we will get there.

bcb

In the third chapter, Rav Kook, distinguishes between a detailed teshuva relating to specific individual sins and a broad general teshuva related to no sin in particular. He writes (in the second paragraph):

וישנה עוד הרגשת תשובה סתמית כללית. אין חטא או חטאים של עבר עולים על לבו, אבל ככלל הוא מרגיש בקרבו שהוא מדוכא מאד, שהוא מלא עון, שאין אור ד' מאיר עליו, אין רוח נדיבה בקרבו, לבו אטום

There is another repentance emotion, which is broad and general. The person is not conscious of any past sin or sins, but overall he feels crushed. He feels that he’s full of sin. The G-dly light doesn’t enlighten him, he is not awake; his heart is shut tight. 

The concept of a teshuva that is independent of sin is also found in Likutei Torah:

התשובה אינה דוקא במי שיש בידו עבירות ח"ו אלא אפילו בכל אדם, כי תשובה הוא להשיב את נפשו שירדה מטה מטה ונתלבשה בדברים גשמיים אל מקורה ושרשה

Repentance isn’t only for those who have sinned (may it not happen), but it’s for everyone. Teshuva is the return of the soul to its source and root, because the soul has descended terribly low, and focuses itself on materialistic goals. [8]

R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi also discusses the same symptoms as Rav Kook.
בזמן הבית הי' הקב"ה עמנו פנים אל פנים בלי שום מסך מבדיל   . . .
משא"כ עכשיו בגלות מחיצה של ברזל מפסקת ונק' חולת אהבה שנחלשו חושי אהבה ואומר על מר מתוק

When the temple stood, when the Holy One blessed is He was with us face to face without any concealment . . . However now in exile there’s an iron partition that separates us. We are lovesick, meaning our love is weak. We don’t distinguish bitter from sweet. 
כעת בגלות מחמת כי הלב מטומטמת אין המח שליט עלי' כ"כ
כי עבירה מטמטמת לבו שלאדם ונקרא לב האבן
Now in exile because the heart is shut down, the mind hardly can arouse it. Sin has shut down the heart and it’s called a heart of stone. [9]

bcb

The organization of the first three chapters of Orot Hateshuva, presents another sort of problem: How are the types of teshuva in the three chapters related? Is the intellectual teshuva of chapter one different from the sudden teshuva of chapter two and different from the general teshuva of chapter three?

I suggest that the arrangement of the three chapters follows the categories of עולם שנה ונפש, (which are found in Sefer Yetzirah). The first chapter examines natural return, faithful and intellectual return. These are connected to נפש – one’s personality and understanding. The second chapter deals with repentance and its relationship to time (שנה). Repentance is either sudden or gradual. The third chapter speaks about a return motivated by a specific sin or motivated by a general malaise. This can possibly be associated with space/location (עולם); the world (or the specific sin) is located somewhere outside of the person and motivates the person to return. Explanations based on the three dimensions of עולם שנה ונפש occur in a number of places in Likutei Torah. [10]




[1] here, and here
[2] I saw these two examples in Rav Kook’s Ein AY”H, (here).
In the following paragraph, Rav Kook speaks about a natural spiritual, repentance ––pangs of remorse (if the sinner is an otherwise upright individual) that motivate the sinner to perform teshuva.
[3] Likutei Torah Parshat Balak 73a. The sermon begins with the words מה טובו. There are (shorter) versions of the sermon published in other collections. (here)
[4] Quoted also in the second part of Tanya, (Shaar Hayichud Vhaemunah) beginning of chapter 6. The statement is usually attributed to R. Moshe Cordovero, (Pardes Rimonim)
[5] Possibly both R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi and R. Kook relied on an earlier source that I’m unaware of. Maybe R. Kook and R. Shneur Zalman arrived at a similar understanding independently.
[6] R. Tzvi Yehudah Kook wrote the introduction to the book. From the introduction, it looks like R. Glicenstein had given R. Tzvi Yehudah his essays and notes so that they could be published. (here)
[7] Parshat Vayikra page 2b, on the words אדם כי יקריב מכם (here).
[8] Shabbat Shuva page 66c and Balak page 75b.
[9] Parshat Re’eh page 26a, Shir ha Shirim   page 36a.
[10] Parshat Hukat page 64d. Obviously, I don’t think that Rav Kook’s use of olam, shana, nefesh, (if he’s in fact using that breakdown) comes specifically from Likutei Torah.  

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

The Strange Shape of the Marcheshet Pan

                             The Strange Shape of the Marcheshet Pan
                                                             By Eli Genauer

“The underlying basis of our work is that pictures are an organic part of the commentary, and it possible that Rashi even allowed himself to limit his explanatory words when a picture was available to the reader. This is in the sense of "a picture is worth a thousand words". The picture is an integral part of the written book, no less important than the words.” 

                                                               Dr Ezra Chwat
                                                     Department of Manuscripts, National Library of Israel
                                                      Giluy Milta B'Almah Blog
                                                           January 15, 2017


There were many vessels used in the Beit HaMikdash. Nevertheless, without pictures or diagrams drawn contemporaneous to their existence, there remains some doubt as to exactly what they looked like. I would like to discuss one vessel used quite often in the Temple and see what the diagrams of the Rishonim can tell us about its makeup. I would also like to analyze a diagram in Rashi’s commentary to Talmud Bavli and see how it fits into our discussion.

Massechet Menachot 63a
האומר הרי עלי במחבת, לא יביא במרחשת; במרחשת, לא יביא במחבתמה בין מחבת למרחשת--אלא שהמרחשת יש לה כסוי, ולמחבת אין לה כסוי, דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי; רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אומר, מרחשת עמוקה ומעשיה רוחשין, ומחבת צפה ומעשיה קשין
One who says, “I take upon myself [to offer a grain offering prepared] on a griddle, he must not bring [one baked] in a pan. If [he says “I take upon myself to offer a grain offering prepared] in a pan,” he must not bring [one prepared] on a griddle. What is the difference between a griddle and a pan? The pan has a lid to it, but the griddle has no lid – [these are ] the words of Rabbi Yose Hagili; Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says : a pan is deep and what is prepared is spongy, a griddle is flat and what is prepared is hard.[1]

Leaving  aside the opinion of Rabbi Yossi Haglili, let us concentrate on the statement of Rabi Chanina ben Gamliel

We would imagine that the Marcheshet is a deep vessel, and the Machvat is flat, as it is described as a griddle.  Perhaps like this:


                                   









The Gemara then cites a Braita which deals with the following situation.  If a person takes a vow saying “I take upon myself a Marcheshet”, it remains unclear whether he meant he will bring the vessel called a Marcheshet, or the normal Korban Mincha that is brought in a Marcheshet. Beit Hillel is of the opinion that since there was a specific vessel in the Beit Hamikdash called a Marcheshet, we understand that he is talking about that vessel and we require him to donate it to the Beit HaMikdash.[2] Here are the words of the Braita which describe in some detail the appearance of this Marcheshet pan:
כלי היה במקדש ומרחשת שמה ודומה כמין כלבוס עמוק וכשבצק מונח בתוכם דומה כמין תפוחי הברתים וכמין בלוטי היוונים
There was a vessel in the Temple called Marhesheth, resembling a deep mould, which gave the dough that was put into it the shape of Cretan apples and Grecian nuts. (The Soncino Hebrew/English Babylonian Talmud)

Rashi goes to great lengths to explain this uncertain statement and includes a diagram in his commentary. This diagram first appeared in printed form in the early 18th century but unfortunately, it does not align with the words Rashi uses to describe the overall shape of the pan.  Additionally, It does not match the diagram we have in a manuscript of Rashi nor diagrams in manuscripts of other Rishonim.

But first some background

The diagrams we have today in the Vilna Shas in Rashi and other Rishonim come from earlier printed editions. The first printed edition of the entire Talmud to contain diagrams was the Behrmann Shas printed in Frankfurt on Oder, 1696-98.[3] Raphael Natan Nata Rabinowitz posits that by the time diagrams were included in the printed text, there were very few manuscripts around because most had been placed in Genizah.[4]  He therefore concludes that manuscripts were not used in the early 18th century as a source for diagrams. What was the source of those diagrams for the Behrmann Shas ? According to the editors of the Behrmann Shas, they mostly came from the Chochmat Shlomo of 1582.[5] It’s an extremely reliable source because it was written by Rav Shlomo Luria who specifically wrote it to correct the text of the Bomberg Shas and to insert the relevant diagrams. Rav Shlomo Luria lived at a time when there were still many manuscripts around, so either he used those manuscripts for his textual emendations and as a source for his diagrams, or he used his own capabilities to come up with his changes and additions. Since most of our present day diagrams follow from the Behrmann edition, they have an aura of authenticity attached to them.[6]

The problem arises when we discover that Chochmat Shlomo does not include all the diagrams we have today. For example, in our case, there is no Chochmat Shlomo on Menachot.

Let us now take a look at the diagram in Rashi on Menachot 63a.

The first time it appeared in print was in the Frankfurt am Main edition of 1722, exactly 200 years after the diagramless Bomberg edition. We know its source was not a manuscript of Rashi nor was it the product of the Maharshal.













Putting aside the diagram for a moment, let us concentrate on the words of Rashi as he tries to describe the Marcheshet:
כלבוס - גלואו"ן שם כלי עשוי כעין מחבת שלנו והדופן באמצעות כלפי פנים כזה  ומצוייר תוכו גומות גומות וכשהבצק מונח בתוכו [נכנס] הבצק בגומות:
Rashi concentrates on the word כלבוס as the Gemara itself says that a Marcheshet is shaped like a deep כלבוס. Rashi first gives us an old French word which is normally translated as “tongs”.[7] He says that the Marcheshet is like his present day Machvat pan and that the “wall in the middle faces the inside, like this”. The problem is that the diagram does not seem to show a wall in the middle facing the inside. Additionally, if a כלבוס is a pair of tongs, and the shape of the vessel looked somewhat like a pair of tongs, how does that align with the diagram which is circular?

The Shita Mekubetzet which is included on the standard page of the Vilna Shas has a completely different diagram.

























Notice that the word Dofen is in the middle of the diagram just as Rashi says והדופן באמצעות כלפי פנים

The volume of the Bomberg edition that belonged to Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi the author of the Shita Mekubetzet contains the exact same diagram inserted in the blank space of the Rashi.

Jerusalem - The National Library of Israel Ms. Heb. 4°79 (link).




















In his book Dikdukei Sofrim on Menachot (Munich, 1886) R.N.N. Rabinowitz writes about the importance of the comments of the Shita Mekubetzet as they were addressed to the Bomberg edition of 1522 and relied heavily on manuscripts which included a Rashi manuscript.[8] The Acharit Davar printed at the end of the Vilna Shas also extols the importance of the Shita Mekubetzet on Kodshim as it came from a manuscript and was based in part on a manuscript misidentified but actually of Peirush Rashi.[9]

Going back in history, we can get an idea if a diagram did in fact exist in Rashi manuscripts by looking at the first printed edition of Menachot which was Bomberg 1522. Its source had to be from manuscripts because no printed edition preceded it.


















You can see that the Bomberg editors included the word “כזה” in the text of the Rashi and left 2 spaces indicating that their manuscript included 2 diagrams. This may explain why our present diagram does not reflect the shape of the overall pan as there may have been one diagram depicting its shape and a second one depicting the apple like insets. In fact, a notation in the Oz Vehadar edition states quite clearly that our diagram just illustrates the words “גומות גומות”.

As mentioned before, the words of Rashi seem to support the idea that the Marcheshet pan was semicircular in nature. In addition, the shape of the vessel is likened to a כלבוס which is an item dealt with a number of times by Rashi

For example this Rashi on Shabbat 59b:







Rashi states that an item worn by women called a “מנקתא פארי” ( starting with the letters “וי״מ” for ויש מפרשים) is “כּמין חצי עגול עשוי כמין כלבוס” and then draws your attention to a diagram of a semi circle.

Fortunately I was able to find a manuscript of Rashi on Menachot which is identified as Vatican 487  and is from the 13th century. (Made available by the Polonsky Digitization Project) It pictures the Marchseshet pan in a semicircular shape and thus fits in more with the words of Rashi.








It’s clear that the diagram included only deals with the semicircular nature of the vessel and not the little depressions inside the “Tocho Shel Kli”. This diagram is very similar to the one in the Shita Mekubetzet and it is possible it served as a source for the Shita Mekubetzet.[10]

We are confronted with another diagram of the Marcheshet pan in what is known as the Peirush Rabbeinu Gershom first printed in the Vilna Shas. This Peirush describes the vessel being shaped like a כלבוס and then says it is “כמו פגום”, which means incomplete. One would expect to see a vessel like in the Shita Mekubetzet and in the Rashi manuscript which is not either completely circular or square in nature. Nevertheless, the diagram in the Vilna Shas depicts this vessel as being square like this
In the Achrit Davar the editors of the Vilna Shas state that they had a manuscript of this Peirush Rabbeinu Gershom however the following manuscript shows the pan as having an indentation and not being square.


















Roma - Biblioteca Angelica Or. 1 (link):











It could be they that had a manuscript depicting a square pan, or it is possible that their manuscript had a pan with an indentation and this was not transferred successfully to the printed page. Certainly the words of the Rabbeinu Gershom indicate the latter.

Conclusion:

Nowadays it is easy for us to transfer an image from a manuscript to a printed or electronic page. All we have to do is point, shoot, copy and paste. The result is an exact duplicate of what is on the manuscript, and it is even easier to work with than the original. But hundreds of years ago it was not so simple. A woodcut or an engraving of the image could be made and then transferred to the printed page, but that was time consuming and expensive. Because of this, images such as diagrams were just left out, and when they were added, they were often misleading and sometimes even incorrect. The printing revolution was a giant step forward for the dissemination of Jewish knowledge, but, at least at its beginning, played havoc with many important diagrams.

[1] English translation from Sefaria.org.
[2] The Rambam Paskens according to Beit Hillel. Since Beit Hillel speaks about the Marcheshet being different than a Machvat,  and not just having a cover) it is clear that the Rambam holds like Rav Chananya ben Gamliel
[3] Maamar 'al hadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, ed. A.M. Habermann, Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem: 2006, p.41. The Soncino family printed individual editions of the Talmud between 1483- 1518, but not an entire set. Some of those editions such as Eiruvin did contain diagrams and some did not. The first complete set of the Talmud was the Bomberg edition 1519-1522. That edition did not contain diagrams, only empty spaces which were to indicate where diagrams were to go (the only exception was Sotah 43a). There were numerous full editions of the Talmud printed between 1522-1697, but these also did not contain diagrams. 
[4] Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud, Marvin J. Heller, Im Hasefer 1993 p.6 states as follows: “Rabbinovicz attributes the dearth of Talmud codices to the manner in which they, and many other manuscripts, had been written; without any commentaries, with errors and erasures, and lacking even lines. Rashi and Tosafot (additions by Ashkenazic luminaries after Rashi) were separate manuscripts, suffering from the same conditions. As a result, learning must have been difficult, with the reader having to continuously peruse three different works, assuming that he owned them. Therefore, when the Talmud was printed with Rashi and Tosafot, “men no longer learned from their manuscripts, but considered them as utensils without further value, placing them in genizahs, so that they no longer exist.”
[5] Other sources mentioned by the editors of the Behrmann Shas are Maharsha and Maharam Lublin. Neither of those sources contain diagram for our Rashi.
[6] A good summary of the subject of where our present day diagrams came from can be found in the introduction to the Shas Nehardea, under the heading of "המקור לציורי הש"ס". (Vagshal Publishing Ltd, Jerusalem, 2008, p.5 of the introduction. The overall section on diagrams starts on page 4 of the introduction under the heading "מבוא לציורי הש״ס".)There are a few diagrams that are not in the Berman Shas but first appear in the Frankfurt am Main edition of 1720-1722. Here too, the editors of that edition say that the source of their diagrams was the Chochmat Shlomo.
[7] All the Meforshim understand that Beit Hillel is saying that the Marcheshet pan is shaped like a כלבוס, meaning the pan is shaped like a pair of tongs.  I would imagine tongs to look like this, with the top part being semicircular especially in the open position









Jastrow renders our Braita saying that a Marcheshet is “a baking form in the shape of forceps with cavities”
[8] Rabbinowitz writes on page 1 of his introduction that when he wrote his emendations on Menachot that “I had in my hand a handwritten manuscript of the Shita Mekubetzet by Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi…..And he wrote his comments on the 1522 Venetian edition including Gemara, Rashi and Tosafot with the help of handwritten manuscripts he ( Betzalel Ashekenazi) had in his hands”
[9] Achrit Davar at the end of Masechet Nidah, p.6
[10] The Oz VeHadar edition of the Talmud actually changes the diagram inside the Rashi to the diagram of the Shita Mekubetzet

Print post

You might also like

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...